INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
INTERPRETATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN CONCRETE CUBE
AND CYLINDER
V. Naga Narasimha Rao1, S. Anusha2, M.Venkata Sai Teja3, N.Venkata Naga Sai4, V. Nagaraja5
1,2,3,4B.Tech,
5Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering, Dhanekula Institute of Engineering and Technology
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Department Dhanekula Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Vijayawada, India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------------------------Abstract:- Concrete is the oldest and most important construction material in the world. Testing of the concrete specimens
plays an important role to know about the parameters of the concrete. So this study is conducted primarily to determine the
compressive strength of concrete cubes and cylinders by using Destructive and Non-Destructive Test(NDT). In order to
calibrate the DT method(Compressive Testing Machine)and NDT methods (Schmidt hammer or Rebound number and
ultrasonic pulse velocity) with various grades of concrete are M20,M25,M30 and M40 and the cure samples were tested using
Destructive test and NDT methods according to the Indian Standards. The cube and cylinder specimens were tested in 28 days
and the outcomes were compared. The outcomes of DT results are to verify that there are limitations in each NDT methods
and are able to eliminate the limitations in the NDT.
Key Words: Destructive test(DT), Non-destructive test(NDT), Compressive Strength.
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete is the most commonly used construction materials in construction practices. So the determination of concrete
strength has become the most important factor in the construction practices. The compressive strength is one of the most
important property to known about the quality of concrete. There are various destructive and non-destructive Tests
(NDT) methods are developed for determining the compressive strength in the concrete specimens. The aim of these,
control concrete production and determine under service loads deteriorated concrete in buildings on time. But the
destructive methods are uneconomical and time consuming. Also cube and cylinder, prepared in laboratory, concrete
specimens are not representing in-situ concrete. Thus researches have developed the direct non-destructive test methods
to find the compressive strength in the existing structures. The NDT methods are faster and economical when compared
with the destructive test methods. But the NDT results are no value if the results are not reliable, representative and as
close as possible to the actual strength the tested part of the structure. The NDT test methods have some limitations. To
reduce these limitations of the NDT test result has to be correlated with results of Destructive test method. The purpose of
this study is to investigate the correlation between the strength values obtained by destructive and NDT test methods on
both concrete cubes and cylinders.
II. TEST SPECIMENS
A.Materials used



Cement:Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 53 grade is used in this experimental work. Weight of each cement
bagis 50 kg and the specific gravity is 3.6.
Fine aggregates: Natural sand having specific gravity 2.378 and Fineness modulus as 2.60.
Coarse aggregate: It consist of 12 mm and 20mm crushed aggregate and the specific gravity is 2.75
B. Mix proportion and casting procedure
Hand mixing over a mixing tray was done throughout. Coarse aggregates were placed first in the tray followed by natural
sand and then cement. The materials were dry mixed thoroughly for 1 minute before adding water. Mixing continued for
further few minutes after adding water. Concrete was then placed in IS specified moulds in three layers, each layer was
being compacted by standard tamping road with more than 25 strokes. Exposed surface was finished with trowel to avoid
uneven surface. A total of 48 concrete specimens 150x150x150mm& 300x150mmwas designed and fabricated. Specimens
were prepared to obtain characteristic cube strength of 20 MPa, 25 MPa, 30 MPa and 40 MPa. In particular, 6 specimens of
each grade concrete cube and cylinder then the Specimens were cured by immersing them in curing tank for 28 days.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6679
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
REBOUND HAMMER TEST:
The Schmidt hammer test has been used world-wide as an index test for a quick concrete testing
Table 1 Mix Design Calculations For M20, M25, M30 & M40 Grade Concrete Mix proportion Of Concrete Per cubic mete
Concrete Grade
Cement (Kg/M3)
Fine Aggregate
Coarse Aggregate
(Kg/M3)
(Kg/M3)
Water Cement Ratio
M20
394
624
1192
0.5
M25
410
614
1186
0.48
M30
438
598
1182
0.45
M40
493
568
1172
0.4
III. TEST PROGRAM
COMPRESSIVE TESTING MACHINE:
Compression testing machine of capacity 2000 kN is used for compression testing of cube and cylinder as casted of size
150x150x150 mm and 150x300 mm and capable of giving load at the rate of 140 kg/sq.cm/min. Testing of the concrete
cubes and cylinders are tested under CTM at the age of 28 days. The wet specimens were placed in the machine between
wiped and cleaned loading surfaces and load is given approximately at the rate of 140 kg/sq.cm/min. and ultimate
crushing load is noted to calculate crushing strength of concrete according to IS: 516-1959. The measuring strength of
specimen is calculated by dividing the maximum load applied to the specimen during the test by the cross section area.
Equipment to estimate strength of concrete due to its rapidity and easiness in execution, simplicity, portability, low cost
and non-destructiveness. It is principally a surface hardness tester, which works on the principle that the rebound of an
elastic mass depends on the hardness of the surface against which the mass impinges. The determination of compressive
strength in the concrete specimens by using graphs which is related with the rebound number and compressive strength.
The weight of the rebound hammer is about 1.8 kg and is suitable for both laboratory test and field test. The rebound
hammer arbitrary scale is ranging from 10 to 100.
ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST:
The UPV test equipment consists of an transducers, electrical pulse generator, amplifier and electronic timing device. The
test can be performed on samples in the laboratory after 28 days. The electronic timing device is used for measuring the
time interval between the initiation of a pulse generated at the transmitting transducer and its arrival at the receiving
transducer. Many factors are influencing the test results, mix proportion, curing period, moisture content, travel distance
of the wave etc., The test is described in ASTM C597, EN12504-4:2004.
Pulse velocity (in km/s or m/s) is given by:
V=L/T
where,
V is the longitudinal pulse velocity,
L is the path length,
T is the time taken by the pulse to travel path length.
The method consists of measuring the ultrasonic pulse
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6680
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
Fig -1 Testing of Specimens by CTM, RH & UPV
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The following results were tabulated after testing specimen of cubes and cylinders by Compressive Testing Machine
(Destructive Test), Rebound Hammer, Pulse Velocity Test (Non-Destructive Test).
A. FOR M20 GRADE OF CONCRETE:
S.NO
Compressive Strength of Cube (N/mm2)
S.No
CTM Strength
RH Strength
UPV Strength
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
24.6
25.7
27.5
28
25.9
29.4
26.85
22
24
25
27
24
28
25
23.7
24.8
26.4
25.9
24.8
28.2
25.63
Table No 2 Compressive Strength of Cube for M20 grade
S.NO
Compressive Strength of Cube (N/mm2)
S.No
CTM Strength
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
RH Strength
21.1
18
21.5
20
22.1
22
20.9
18
23.8
24
21.6
20
21.83
20.33
Table No 3 Compressive Strength of Cylinder for M20 grade
UPV Strength
20.1
19.8
22.3
19.8
24.2
21.3
21.21
B. FOR M25 GRADE OF CONCRETE:
S.NO
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
CTM Strength
33.7
27.1
27.9
32.1
33.3
32.8
31.15
Compressive Strength of Cube (N/mm2)
RH Strength
31
28
29
31
32
30
30.16
UPV Strength
32.32
28.6
29.5
31.8
33.6
31.9
31.28
Table No 4 Compressive Strength of Cube for M25 grade
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6681
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
WWW.IRJET.NET
CTM Strength
24.6
29.2
23.3
26.5
25.3
26.1
25.83
Compressive Strength of Cylinder (N/mm2)
RH Strength
24
28
21
24
24
26
24.5
UPVStrength
25.6
29.2
22.9
27.4
24.8
27.3
26.2
Table No 5 Compressive Strength of Cylinder for M25 grade
B. FOR M30 GRADE OF CONCRETE:
S.NO
S.No
Compressive Strength of Cube (N/mm2)
CTM Strength
36.8
35.2
38.7
37.8
34.5
37.7
36.78
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
RH Strength
37
32
36
35
30
34
34
UPV Strength
35.6
34.1
37.2
35.4
31.8
36.9
35.16
Table No 6 Compressive Strength of Cube for M30 grade
S.NO
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
CTM Strength
32.8
31.6
33.4
29.4
29.2
32.1
31.41
Compressive Strength of Cylinder (N/mm2)
RH Strength
30
30
32
29
28
31
30
UPV Strength
31.9
32.5
34.5
28.2
29.1
31.1
31.21
Table No 7 Compressive Strength of Cylinder for M30 grade
B. FOR M40 GRADE OF CONCRETE:
S.NO
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
CTM Strength
50.3
46.8
47
44.1
51.5
48.5
48.03
Compressive Strength of Cube (N/mm2)
RH Strength
48
38
43
39
49
46
43.83
UPV Strength
48.9
41.7
48.1
42.8
50.5
47.4
46.56
Table No 8 Compressive Strength of Cube for M40 grade
S.NO
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
CTM Strength
39.8
43.1
42.3
44.8
40.9
43.6
42.41
Compressive Strength of Cylinder (N/mm2)
RH Strength
37
42
38
42
38
45
40.33
UPV Strength
37.5
41.2
38.6
43.8
39.1
42.4
40.43
Table No 9 Compressive Strength of Cube for M40 grade
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6682
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
5. COMPARISON OF RESULTS
From observation table comparison of average rebound strength, average UPV and average compressive strength of
cylinders and cubes for M20, M25, M30 and M40 grades of concrete is done. It observed that,
1. Average rebound strength of cubes is greater than average rebound strength of cylinders.
2. Average UPV of cubes is greater than average UPV of cylinders.
3. Average compressive strength of cubes is greater than average compressive strength of cylinders.
The relation between average compressive strength of cubes (fcube) and average compressive strength cylinders
(fcyl) are developed from above results is given below:
Grade
Relation between
fcube and fcyl
fcube =1.22 f cyl
fcube =1.20 f cyl
fcube =1.17 f cyl
fcube =1.13 f cyl
For M20
For M25
For M30
For M40
Relation between
fcube and fcyl as per IS 516-1959
fcube =1.25 f cyl
fcube =1.25 f cyl
fcube =1.25 f cyl
fcube =1.25 f cyl
Table No 10 Relation Between Cube and Cylindrical Compressive Strength
6. REGRESSION ANALYSIS
In the proposed work statistical methods are used for explanation of the tests results and the prediction of concrete
strength. Statistical concepts indispensable in the analysis of any test result related to the mechanical strength of the
concrete which obtained in lab from the compressive strength test carried out to a sample of core even in a standard
cylinder form. This work included to predict the analytical relationships between
1. Cube Compressive Strength Vs Cube Rebound Strength.
2. Cube Compressive Strength Vs Cube UPV Strength.
3. Cube Rebound Strength Vs Cube UPV Strength.
4. Cylindrical Compressive Strength Vs Cylindrical Rebound Strength.
5. Cylindrical Compressive Cylindrical Strength Vs UPV Strength.
6. Cylindrical Rebound Strength Vs Cylindrical UPV Strength.
For analysis process of the results regression analysis method was used. The goal of regression method is to fit a
line through points (results) so that the squared deviations of the observed points from that line are minimized.
In regression analysis we obtain a set of coefficients for an equation.
7. EQUATIONS OF RELATIONSHIP AFTER REGRESSION ANALYSIS:
Different regress model of curve between rebound number, Pulse velocity and the compressive strength of concrete core
according to the experimental data is given below:
Type of Eqations
Linear
Exponential
CTM Vs RH
Strength
fcube = 0.877Rcube + 1.930
CTM Vs UPV
Strength
fcube = 0.985Ucube - 0.338
RH Vs UPV
Strength
Rcube = 1.059 Ucube - 0.568
R² = 0.94
R² = 0.983
R² = 0.971
fcube =
Logarithmic
13.03e0.025
Rcube
fcube =
12.71e0.027Ucube
Rcube = 12.64e0.029 Ucube
R² = 0.939
R² = 0.972
R² = 0.959
fcube = 31.76ln(Rcube) -
fcube = 35.51ln(Ucube) - 91.23
Rcube = 36.02ln(Ucube) - 90.71
79.48
R² = 0.967
R² = 0.961
fcube = 0.004 Rcube 2 + 0.53
fcube = 0.003 Ucube 2 + 0.728
Rcube = -0.003 Ucube 2 + 1.280x -
Rcube + 8.163
Ucube + 4.269
4.307
R² = 0.948
R² = 0.983
R² = 0.972
R² = 0.932
Polynomial
Power
© 2019, IRJET
fcube =
|
1.169x0.936
Impact Factor value: 7.211
fcube = 0.964
|
Ucube1.003
Rcube = 0.976 Ucube 1.018
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6683
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
R² = 0.946
R² = 0.978
R² = 0.973
Table No 11
Regress model between rebound strength, pulse velocity and the compressive strength of concrete cube for combination
of M20, M25, M30 and M40 grade of concrete
Type of Eqations
Linear
fcyl
CTM Vs RH
Strength
= 0.975Rcyl - 0.848
R² = 0.974
Exponential
fcyl
Logarithmic
Polynomial
fcyl
R² = 0.980
=
10.18e0.033x
fcyl
Rcyl
RH Vs UPV
Strength
= 0.932 Ucyl + 2.924
R² = 0.975
=
11.44e0.030Ucyl
Rcyl
=
11.88e0.030
Ucyl
R² = 0.952
R² = 0.953
R² = 0.954
fcyl = 30.41ln(Rcyl) - 74.04
fcyl = 28.93ln(Ucyl) - 68.03
Rcyl = 27.15ln(Ucyl) - 60.49
R² = 0.969
R² = 0.984
R² = 0.969
fcyl = -0.003 Rcyl 2 + 1.182
fcyl = -0.009Ucyl2 + 1.526x -
Rcyl = -0.006Ucyl2 + 1.318Ucyl -
Rcyl
7.472
2.607
R² = 0.984
R² = 0.978
-
3.998
R² = 0.974
Power
CTM Vs UPV
Strength
= 0.924Ucyl + 1.701
fcyl
=
0.817
Rcyl
1.042
R² = 0.972
fcyl
=
1.106Ucyl0.964
R² = 0.978
Rcyl
=
1.397Ucyl0.911
R² = 0.976
Table No 12
Regress model between rebound strength, pulse velocity and the compressive strength of concrete cylinder for
combination of M20, M25,M30 and M40 grade of concrete
Type of Eqations
Linear
CTM Vs UPV
Strength
Rcube = 0.917Rcyl - 1.724
Ucube
R² = 0.758
R² = 0.825
Rcube=9.797e0.031fcyl
Ucube
R² = 0.754
R² = 0.816
Rcube = 31.49ln(x) - 80.82
Ucube = 30.15ln(Ucyl) - 76.39
R² = 0.856
R² = 0.74
R² = 0.837
fcube = 0.000x2 + 0.859 fcyl -
Rcube = -0.015 fcyl
0.957
fcyl
R² = 0.870
R²= 0.771
fcube
CTM Vs RH
Strength
= 0.896fcyl - 1.627
R² = 0.870
Exponential
10.59e0.028fcyl
fcube=
R² = 0.86
Logarithmic
fcube=32.44ln(fcyl)
Polynomial
Power
fcube
=
0.726
-84.77
fcyl
1.042
R²= 0.863
2
+ 1.989
-
Rcube
=
R² = 0.773
19.90
RH Vs UPV
Strength
= 0.840 Ucyl + 0.627
=
10.95e0.028Ucyl
Ucube = -0.016 Ucyl2 + 2.058 fcyl
-20.76
R² = 0.843
0.636
fcyl
1.085
Ucube
=
0.820Ucyl1.011
R² = 0.842
Table No 13
Regress model between rebound strength, pulse velocity and the compressive strength of concrete cube and cylinder for
combination of M20, M25, M30 and M40 grade of concrete
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6684
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
8. CORRELATION AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The strength of relationship and governing equation between the NDT and DT compressive strength test results were
determined statistical tool.
Calibration curves for CTM, RH & UPV are drawn using regression analysis of cubes :
Cube Compressive Strength Vs Rebound Hammer Strength
Compressive Strength Mpa
60
y = 0.8772x + 1.9308
R² = 0.9467
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Rebound Strength Mpa
Chart-1 Cube Compressive Strength Vs Rebound Hammer Strength
Cube Compressive Strength Vs Upv Strength
Compressive Strength Mpa
60
y = 0.9855x - 0.3382
R² = 0.983
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Upv Strength Mpa
Chart-2 Cube Compressive Strength Vs Upv Strength
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6685
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
Cube Rebound Strength Vs Upv Strength
Rebound Strength Mpa
60
y = 1.0596x - 0.5688
R² = 0.9719
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Upv Strength Mpa
Chart-3 Cube Rebound Strength Vs Upv Strength
Calibration curves for CTM, RH & UPV are drawn using regression analysis of cylinders:
Compressive Strength Mpa
Cylinder Compressive Strength Vs Rebound Strength
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y = 0.9758x - 0.8484
R² = 0.9741
0
10
20
30
40
50
Rebound Strength Mpa
Chart-4 Cylinder Compressive Strength Vs Rebound Strength
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6686
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
Compressive Strength Mpa
Cylinder Compressive Strength Vs Upv Strength
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y = 0.9242x + 1.701
R² = 0.9805
0
10
20
30
40
50
Upv Strength Mpa
Chart-5 Cylinder Compressive Strength Vs Upv Strength
Rebound Strength Mpa
Cylinder Rebound Strength Vs Upv Strength
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y = 0.9326x + 2.9248
R² = 0.9758
0
10
20
30
40
50
Upv Strength Mpa
Chart-6 Cylinder Compressive Strength Vs Upv Strength
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6687
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
Calibration curves for CTM, RH & UPV are drawn using regression analysis of cube and cylinders:
CTM Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
Cylinder Strength Mpa
50
y = 0.8963x - 1.6279
R² = 0.8701
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
60
50
60
Cube Strength Mpa
Chart-7 CTM Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
RH Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
Cylinder Strength Mpa
50
y = 0.9178x - 1.7243
R² = 0.7585
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
Cube Strength Mpa
Chart-8 RH Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
UPV Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
Cylinder Strength Mpa
50
y = 0.8409x + 0.6278
R² = 0.8252
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
Cube Strength Mpa
Chart-9 UPV Strength of Cube Vs Cylinder
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6688
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
9. CONCLUSIONS
From experimental and graphical study following conclusions were made
1. The ratio of the compressive strength of cube and cylinder is varying between 1.25 to 0.8 and the ratio is vary when the
grade of concrete is changes.
2. The high rebound number and high velocity gives the high compressive strength while Vs.
3. The use of more than one NDT method would provide a better correlation, leading to predictable means of evaluation of
strength in concrete.
4. The following relations are drawn by considering different tests such as compressive test, Rebound hammer test and
ultrasonic pulse velocity test on casted cubes which are from lab.
The relation between the compressive strength of cube and compressive strength of cylinders
fcube = 0.877Rcube + 1.930
R² = 0.94
The relation between compressive strength of cube and upv strength of cube are
fcube = 0.985Ucube - 0.338
R² = 0.983
The relation between rebound strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity strength of cube is
Rcube = 1.059Ucube - 0.568
R² = 0.971
5. The following relations are drawn by considering different tests such as Compressive test, Rebound hammer test and
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test on casted cylinders which are from lab:
i)
ii)
iii)
The relation between compressive strength and Rebound strength of cylinders
fcyl = 0.975Rcyl - 0.848
R² = 0.974
The relation between compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity test strength of cylinders
is
fcyl= 0.924Ucyl + 1.701
R² = 0.980
The relation between rebound strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity test strength of
cylinder is
Rcyl = 0.932Ucyl + 2.924
R² = 0.975
6.The following relations are drawn by considering different tests such as compressive test, Rebound hammer test and
ultrasonic pulse velocity test on casted cubes and cylinders which are from lab:
i)
ii)
iii)
The relation between compressive strength of cubes and cylinders by compressive testing machine is
fcube = 0.896f cyl - 1.627
R² = 0.870
The relation between compressive strength of cube and cylinders by conducting rebound hammer test is
Rcube = 0.917R cyl - 1.724
R² = 0.758
The relation between rebound strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity of cylinders
REFERENCES
1. Malik AroojPg Student Department of Civil Engineering Amity University Gurgaon, Haryana, India (2017), Comparison
Of Destructive And Non-Destructive Testing Of Concrete- A Review, International Journal Of Engineering Research And
Technology, Volume 6, Issue 11.
2. Bhosale N., Salunkhe P., (2016), “To Establish Relation Between Destructive and Non- Destructive Tests On Concrete”,
International Journal Of Engineering Research And General Science, Volume 4, Issue 2.
3. Ferhat Aydın, Mehmet Sarıbıyık(2019) Compressive Strength Of Various Ages Concretes By Non-Destructive Test
Methods,Researcg Gate
4. Mulik Nikhil V.1, Balkiminal R.2, Chhabria Deep S.3, Ghare Vijay D.4, Tele Vishal S.5, Mrs. Patil Shweta6. The Use Of
Combined Non Destructive Testing In The Concrete Strenght Assessment From Laboratory Specimens And Existing
Buildings
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6689
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IRJET)
E-ISSN: 2395-0056
VOLUME: 06 ISSUE: 03 | MAR 2019
P-ISSN: 2395-0072
WWW.IRJET.NET
5. JedidiMalek 1) And MachtaKaouther 2) (2015) Destructive And Non-Destructive Testing Of Concrete Structures, Jordan
Journal Of Civil Engineering, Volume 8, No. 4, 2014
6. N. V. Mahure, G. K. Vijh, Scientist C Pankaj Sharma, N. Sivakumar, (2017), “Correlation Between Pulse Velocity And
Compressive Strength Of Concrete”, International Journal Of Earth Sciences And Engineering
7. Nilam Bhosale1 , P.A. Salunkhe 2 (2016), “To Establish Relation Between Destructive And Non-Destructive Tests On
Concrete”, International Journal Of Engineering Research And General Science Volume 4, Issue 2.
8. Sakshi Gupta (2018), “Comparison Of Non-Destructive And Destructive Testing On Concrete: A Review”. , Trends In Civil
Engineering And Its Architecture
9. D. Mikuli(~, Z. Pause, V. Ukrain(~Ik (1992), “Determination Of Concrete Quality In A Structure By Combination Of
Destructive And Non-Destructive Methods”, Materials And Structures.
10. Siddharth Shankar 1, 2, Hikmat Raj Joshi 2 (2014), “Comparison Of Concrete Properties Determined By Destructive
And Non-Destructive Tests”, Journal Of The Institute Of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, Pp. 130–139
11. J.C. Agunwamba, T. Adagba(2012)"A Comparative Analysis Of The Rebound Hammer And Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity In
Testing Concrete" Nigerian Journal Of Technology (Nijotech)
12. D. A., Oladiran, G. F., Raheem, S. B.(2017) "Correlation Between Destructive Compressive Testing (Dt) Andnon
Destructive Testing (Ndt) For Concrete Strength"International Journal Of Engineering Research & Science (Ijoer).
13.Duna Samson1, Omoniyi, Tope Moses2 (2014) "Correlation Between Non-Destructive Testing (Ndt) Anddestructive
Testing (Dt) Of Compressive Strength OfConcrete"International Journal Of Engineering Science Invention
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 6690